If the traffic coming to this site is an indication, we’re into the home stretch on the civic election, the tension is building, and some of the questions raised here are getting more serious attention.
So this last week will be devoted to just a few posts that challenge the candidates on their positions – and try to move beyond the generalities, contradictions and mushy rhetoric of those who don’t want to commit to particulars or deal with the implications of their positions.
For instance:  A Do-it-yourself Political Platform.
This post is a good place to raise some of those questions yourself.  Add them to the Comments; we’ll bring the best to the foreground in separate posts.  And spread the love – we want to put the pressure on all the parties.

Comments

  1. The NPA have stated that they would push for an “affordable subway” down Broadway, a phrase Mr. Lapointe expands upon on his blog (link below) as follows:
    4. While it is optimal to drill below ground, if it is necessary to cut and cover it might require compensation for merchants, something Gregor Robertson supported for the Cambie Street merchants with the Canada Line. There is no plan to raise that money, either, but Gregor Robertson has set a precedent for it.
    Question: Are the NPA and KLP seriously suggesting that the City of Vancouver allow the Broadway subway to be built via cut and cover?
    If the answer is yes, follow-up question: Where will the money come from to pay for the “compensation for merchants”?
    On Cambie, despite the unmitigated destruction that resulted, the project proponents refused to pay any compensation to the affected Cambie merchants and property owners on the basis that TransLink did not want to set a precedent of compensating individuals affected by public works projects.
    Note: Gregor Robertson did not support cut and cover on Cambie Street. Rather as an opposition MLA he unsuccessfully attempted to push for compensation for the merchants and property owners once the cut and cover destruction was patent. Accordingly, no precedent has yet been set in respect of compensation for businesses.
    (http://thevancouveriwant.ca/2014/10/03/myths-broadway-subway-line/)

    1. I’m not a candidate, but I support the idea of compensating merchants for the kind of extensive disruption that cut-and-cover construction would bring. Where should the money come from? It should be funded by the construction project itself. That monetizes the disruption cost of cut-and-cover construction and should lead to a more rational decision between that and a bored tunnel, instead of the “we’ll save all the money and let everyone else pick up the pieces” strategy that was used for the Canada Line.

  2. Some questions I’d love to have answers to:
    – What will you do to get the bike share system moving, or would you just scrap it?
    – Which streets or intersections would you support turning into pedestrian zones?
    – Is a subsidized bus pass for every Vancouverite a good idea? What would that mean for the already crowded bus routes and how would the funding shortfall be covered?
    – Do you support any form of congestion pricing/road tolling?
    – The City’s consultation and study of the False Creek Seawall has identified a number of problems. Would you support improvements to the seawall, even if that means some grass might get paved?
    – On what streets, if any, would you initiate consultation for a new separated bike lane?
    For Kirk LaPointe specifically, I would like to have answers to the highest rated AMA questions that he avoided.

  3. There has been a lot of talk about community engagement and consultation, and about how “the community’s opinion” has not been given enough clout. However, the only message I have heard from non-Vision candidates is that Vision did not conduct enough engagement and consultation. The skeptic in me thinks that this complaint is an excuse for lack of policy.
    Dear candidate: I understand that you promise to do a lot of consultation and engagement. I am interested to know what you propose to do with the results of this consultation and engagement. How much weight will you give to the community’s opinion in your decision-making processes? What will you do when the community does not reach a consensus? If you are not in Vision, please highlight how your answers to these questions differ from what Vision has done.

Leave a Reply to Agustin Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *